Navigate:

Edwards' ActBlue haul could pose problems

Text Size

-

+

reset

Candidate could be facing a multi-million dollar dilemma: the majority of his campaign funds come through PAC ActBlue.
Photo: AP

John Edwards doesn’t accept contributions from political action committees, but the lion’s share of his contributions have come through one particular PAC — ActBlue. And that could be a multimillion-dollar problem for the Democrat's presidential campaign.

The former North Carolina senator has received more than $4.3 million from people who contributed through the PAC’s website, an increasingly common fundraising technique. But it’s also a technique that may not jibe with the clean elections program Edwards plans to use to bolster his cash-strapped campaign.

The presidential public financing system provides up to $250 in taxpayer money for each donation from an individual. But it expressly excludes from matching funds contributions “drawn on the account of a committee.”

It’s unclear whether contributions processed by ActBlue, a pioneering force in online fundraising for Democrats, would be covered by that language. But the Edwards campaign was worried enough to ask the Federal Election Commission for a legal opinion.

If the FEC rules against Edwards, it would be an ironic and troubling twist for a campaign that has struggled to keep pace financially with the field leaders, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois. At the end of September, they had raised around $80 million each, compared with Edwards’ $30 million.

At first, he had announced he wouldn’t participate in the public financing program because its spending restrictions would put his campaign at a disadvantage. But he reversed course in September, rejecting the idea it was a desperate attempt to keep his campaign solvent.

Instead, he cast it as part of a principled stand against special interest cash — and challenged Clinton and Obama to follow suit.

But they — and most of the leading Republican presidential candidates – rejected the system because their campaigns were fundraising at a brisk pace, and bristled at the $50 million spending cap.

Created after Watergate, the goal of the public financing system was to use taxpayer money to reduce the significance of contributions from wealthy patrons and special interest groups.

Edwards’ campaign didn’t respond to requests for comment.

But Lora M. Haggard, chief financial officer for Edwards’ campaign, argued in a letter to the FEC that contributions given through ActBlue, which bills itself as “the online clearinghouse for Democratic action,” should be treated like contributions from people, not a PAC.

She pointed out that Edwards’ campaign directed contributors to ActBlue’s website and asserted the campaign used the PAC as a processing agent, much like campaigns use banks to process donations made using credit cards.

“ActBlue contributions should be matchable because it is in essence doing nothing more than conveying permissible funds donated by individuals to [Edwards],” she wrote.

If the FEC disagrees, Edwards might be able to return contributions processed through ActBlue and ask the donors to recontribute directly, though that would be a tricky process that might not be possible to complete before the matching fund deadline.

ActBlue — which by Sept. 30 had processed 10 times more campaign cash for Edwards than for the next biggest recipient, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson’s presidential campaign — hasn’t filed a comment on the Edwards’ FEC request.

ActBlue’s lawyer and chief operating officer, Jonathan Zucker, wouldn’t say how he thought the presidential public financing law should apply to contributions processed by his group. He pointed out, though, that the law is more than 30 years old.

“The Edwards campaign is asking the FEC to clarify how these regulations should be interpreted in the context of ActBlue and the Internet era," he said.

A lawyer at a group working to reduce the role of money in politics said the FEC should pave the way for more people to contribute online.

“As a general policy matter, the public financing rules and regulations should be interpreted in a way that encourages candidate participation and small donor-matchable contributions — including those made through the Internet,” said Paul Ryan of the Campaign Legal Center.

“As a legal matter,’’ he said, “I don’t see any reason why earmarked contributions received by a presidential candidate through a conduit should not be matchable. It’s all hard money, it’s all disclosed.”

Edwards is asking the FEC to issue its opinion “on an accelerated basis as the presidential primary process will begin shortly.” The latest the agency could rule would be the end of the year.

Here we go again...another negative story about Edwards...Imagine that. I guess we must be at the Politico.com website. You guys are rapidly getting the reputation around the internet as Hilliary central. Almost everyone knows that you're in the tank for Hillary so they take all your stories with a grain of salt.

ctBlue — which by Sept. 30 had processed 10 times more campaign cash for Edwards than for the next biggest recipient, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson’s presidential campaign — hasn’t filed a comment on the Edwards’ FEC request.

TeamPolitico: Nov. 18, 2007 - 8:58 AM EST

John Edwards doesn’t accept contributions from political action committees, but the lion’s share of his contributions have come through one particular PAC — ActBlue.

Thank heavens for a candidate that spends money from PAC's he deplores.

What would you expect from a Liberal Trial Lawyer?

Who speaks to the dead in trials. Who speaks for the poor but lives in a 28,000 sq ft house Who wants you to conserve so he can use his LearJet and SUV's Who wants you and I to pay for his egotistic run for President Who could not get elected to a 2nd term in Congress

Just what we need - another inexperienced lawyer running around.

We must look pretty for the Poh Folks home! Clear cutting for the green movement!

Blitzer asked Hillary and Obama the most questions period. I'm annoyed that the debates have been narrowed down so soon to allowing only two candidates any significant opportunity to speak. No matter how you slice it, it limits the possibility of a "second tier" candidate's making signifcant points, that for all we know might blow holes in the statements of one of the "top" contenders. When Biden actually got a chance to speak, he made Clinton and Obama look uninformed and out of the loop on Pakistan. What makes the media think the American public is ready to have the field narrowed to two candidates, with a wee opening for a third? I still want to hear all of them.

And I don't really give a cr-p whether ActBlue is a PAC or individuals. All campaign money is "special interests" money one way or another. Even "matching funds" turns into special interest money by the very fact that it's allocated in accordance with funds raised from special interests. I want a chance to hear what ALL the candidates would do as president, or say they would do, and to decide which one has the best ideas - and which can carry through on them, which is as important as having them.

It is absolutely deplorable that a person who went to public school and got a law degree actually stood up for regular people against corporations who didn't care whether their products/actions maimed or killed people! It must be criminal for such a person to MAKE MONEY and HELP people at the same time! Wow...someone who made a lot of money built a nice place for his family to live...what a travesty! Shhh...don't tell anyone how "green" the place is...we wouldn't want anyone to know that the guy actually cares about those kinds of things. And there are SO many options to get from one place to another (all over the country) quickly and on time. And of course, all those cars that exceed the CAFE standards have room for the press to monitor every word and every bite! Of course, it is absolutely impossible that someone who has made a lot of money to actually respect those who haven't...to actually stand up for those people (just like they did BEFORE they had money). He must be a phoney, especially since he spent time with 700 college students helping to clean up and rebuild houses in New Orleans...started a College for Everyone program in rural NC...helped to raise the minimum wage in seven states...started an afterschool program. Because all phoneys put their time and money to work for the causes they believe in. Lets see...Senator Harkin uses ActBlue, too...could it be because they don't siphon off a percentage of the donations to the campaigns like the credit card companies do? I mean, gee...the credit card companies make money on the obscene interest they charge (not to mention the fees)...do they REALLY need to siphon off money for the PROCESSING, too? Of course, ActBlue is so much worse than the PACs who have a strangle-hold on the government. I mean, they're agenda is to spread the democratic and Democratic message, NOT to CONTROL the government on behalf of large corporations...at the expense of plain, old working Americans. What does YOUR candidate DO?

Edwards is being increasingly left out of the race, which is becoming a two-person showdown. A new general election poll from Wisconsin yesterday did not even include Edwards, though it had good news for Obama and Clinton. And Edwards was also left out of yesterday's brawl between the two leading campaigns about Robert Novak's report that a smear against Obama was coming.

Edwards did an excellent interview on face the nation as well as late edition-of course Politico had to diss him immediately after-I think it's funny that Iowa is make or break for Edwards, but no problem for"I don't have any money McCain"-of course McCain should stay in-After John Edwards wins Iowa will the meme then be "Oh, he can only win Iowa"-I'm sure Politico and the corporate water carriers will have some inane reason to diminish it-WE GET THE MESSAGE- YOU DON"T WANT EDWARDS IN THE RACE-this translates to not wanting middle class Americans in the race-yes, things will change when he's elected, the playing field may be a little more even, it will be tougher to steal from the taxpayer through slanted laws-we will finally start to address the climate problems-corporations will just have to adapt, as middle class Americans have had to adapt to a terrible economy-it's more than time to share the pain.

Show me a attorney, ESPECIALLY, an ambulance chasing one, who says he cares about his clients and I'll show you a liar. The only lawyer worth a bucket of spit is Stephan Pastis of "Pearls Before Swine" fame and he no longer practices law. Wasn't it Shakespear who said; "The first thing to do is to kill all the lawyers"? Amen to that, William!

Edwards is the new Rick Lazio. Don't hit the girl. He's been falling since he started his attacks on the Queen. I don't think it's fair because he attacks should be in bounds,just pointing out differences.Hillary wants it both ways,being tough when that sounds good and a female victim when that comes in handy. It's a sissy way to run for president. The Bhutto woman has more guts in her little finger than Da beast has in her entire body..But Hillary started pulling ahead when she ran to the right, not the left while Edwards and Obama have tried running farther to the left. You can't win the presidency on a far left agenda.That's why Howard dean lost in '04. I said months ago Obama should have started running to the center.

Well Charcoal if we were to kill off all the lawyers, then who would be there to defend the innocent and prosecute the guilty? Also, without lawyers there would be no judges. I thought Edwards was right to go after Hillary in the debate in Vegas. She claimed he was throwing mud, but all he was doing was pointing out facts and attempting to win the debate. That is the idea isn't it, to win in a debate? Hillary is floating to far to the right. I wish she would stop whining!

Show me a attorney, ESPECIALLY, an ambulance chasing one, who says he cares about his clients and I'll show you a liar. The only lawyer worth a bucket of spit is Stephan Pastis of "Pearls Before Swine" fame and he no longer practices law. Wasn't it Shakespear who said; "The first thing to do is to kill all the lawyers"? Amen to that, William!

Yes, yes, all lawyers are evil nad subhuman, that is, until you need one, at which point the lawyer will become your advocate, best friend, and safety valve.....all at once. Lets hope you are never in a situation that might require a lawyer as good as Edwards to come to your aid. Amen to that.

Anything any Democratic candidate for President has done is a tiny drop in the Republican-filled bucket of corruption and incompetence. They hoped we would just forget about all those mine accidents. They hoped we would believe them when they told us how they were just fine in regulating coal mines. They threw all kinds of typically bogus statistics at us. And yet the the incompetence of our lying hypocritical Republican politicians is still killing good American miners and putting them at undue risk. Man do we need impeachment. I don't want to see another life lost, whether it's a miner underground or a soldier in Iraq, because of these incompetent, corrupt slimeball Republican politicians who can't get their act together. They are not worth it. Shielding their air conditioned butts from the accountability they deserve just isn't worth it. Really. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11...

Of course you can't impeach someone for mining accidents. But there is the fact that he ignored the presidential daily briefing on August 6th that read: 'bin ladin determined to attack the United States by plane.' At the top of the list of the cities that were at risk, New York. Then there is an illeagal war, illeagal wiretapping on American citizens, (which has claimed over 3,800 American lives) using torture and ignoring a plea from the governor of Louissianna, that resulted in thousands of uneeded deaths.

Edwards is the Mitt Romney of the Democratic field. He against taking matching funds before, but now it is a badge of honor that he accepts them. He was for Yucca Mnt. now he is against it. He was for trade deals now he is against them. He was for the war in Iraq now he is liberal dove. Who would believe a word of this shykster attorney's mouth?